Here is Tweet Talk 3, featuring Mike Montalto-Rook, Lis Boyer, Donna DeNoble, and myself (Brandon Rubenstein). We feel like we have hit our stride in terms of dynamics, content, and flow, but we welcome your feedback!Tweet Talk 3 – 2008 TLT Symposium.mp3
design
Clark Kent, or Secret Identity Articles
Ok, so the articles I discuss in this entry aren’t secret, but they may be hidden from you — until now!As previously mentioned, I am enrolled in a class that studies Community Informatics – the study of how communities use information technology to accomplish and develop their goals.In week 7 we read some articles that studied the development of community and engagement in virtual communities. I previously mentioned a paper by Blanchard and Markus that provides definitions for physical and virtual communities, and Sense of Community and Sense of Virtual Communities. That article is available on the Week 7 section of our class website (click here) or on my previous blog post.The theme of this week’s class is Identity, and it directly coincides with the theme of this week’s Wenger’s readings, which Scott and Cole mentioned are moving into the realm of Identity. The Week 8 section of the class web site (click here) has three articles on the subject that you may find interesting, relevant, or helpful in making sense of our class themes.Take a look around the site. I think you will find multiple weeks with topics and readings that you may find applicable to our discussions on community, identity, and design. Some of them are even mildly interesting =)
Tweet Talk 1, Edited
Hi All,I shaved Tweet Talk 1 down to 23 minutes, and I added
some music tracks that I made up for the intro, transitions, and
finale. I also converted it to mp3.Listen to this new version and enjoy!Tweet Talk 1 (edited).mp3
Should a cop ever say to you “Sir (or Ma’am), please identify yourself…”
You can honestly respond with “Ok, but it depends on who is asking.”
Some thoughts on identity…first, I’ll start with my title and lead-in.
Before I go any further, it is important to know that my primary
interest is non-formal education, specifically the camp industry, and I
have worked at a summer camp for the past 13 years of my life, as a
counselor and now Program Director. With that in mind, I recently (and
successfully) defended my comps exam. Many of my questions centered
around applying youth development concepts and theories to the world of
summer camps. Afterwards, my committee complimented me by sharing, to
paraphrase, that I am somewhat of an expert on camping. That made me
feel good.
Since I just built myself up, it is only fair that I knock myself
down. If I told my colleagues at the summer camp that, they would
laugh at me and probably ridicule PSU’s credibility for making such a
statement. Part of their warm response is because we are all sarcastic
jerks to each other and this is how we keep our egos in check. But I
think the main reason this response is that none of us see any one of
us as any more of an expert on camping than the rest of us (wow, that’s
quite the usage of “us” in one sentence). My camp colleagues see me
merely as one of them.
At the same time, the camp colleagues have declared me an expert on
youth development and literature, and often ask me for advice and to
recommend sources when they are in need of help. Please note, this is
in direct contradiction to the aforementioned sarcastic jerkiness
theory. Ahh, I feel good about myself again.
But here comes the kick in the knee: I will be the first to admit that
my research and academia skills are quite inferior, particularly
compared to the great minds that I theoretically encounter on a daily
basis in State College. Some of my PSU colleagues would likely laugh
at the thought of me being a youth development or literature expert
and, unlike the camp colleagues, they are generally nice, encouraging
people.
My point is this: I am a member of two different communities, the
summer camp community and the PSU research community. I don’t conduct
myself any differently in either community; in fact, I often try to do
things and complete projects that satisfy the demands and
responsibilities of both communities at the same time. Yet the
perception of my identity is different despite my uniform actions in
both communities. The camp community sees me as an expert in youth
development because I read more literature and am more familiar with
the academic community than the rest of the community, though my
research skills are quite ordinary in the academic community. On the
other hand, the academic community sees me as an expert on camping
because of my vast experience, understanding, and philosophical
abilities of the camp community, though my camp knowledge is quite
ordinary in the camp community.
Interesting how two different communities see me as an expert in the
opposite world, yet not in their own. My actions are important, but my
identity is dependent upon the context of the observer. Perhaps my
identity is not that I am an expert in camping or an expert in youth
development and literature, but that I am an expert in bridging these
two communities?
What do you think? Do you have any similar experiences, where two
worlds observe you as two different people based on the rest of the
community?
On the Innovation Tracks, and Here Comes the Cluetrain
Having just finished Roger’s “Elements of Diffusion,” I decided to revisit The Cluetrain Manifesto (Punching Care Bears and Cluetrain Eats Soggy Cheerios). Rogers points out that innovations typically don’t happen quickly, regardless of how great the innovation is. Cluetrain’s authors, however, passionately make the argument that there is a revolution in the air and the market is changing due to innovations in the internet and its affect on hierarchies between and within markets and audiences.I guess I am wondering why Cluetrain’s authors felt the change would happen so powerfully, and how quick was the diffusion of the innovative use of the internet in the market — be it business, classrooms, or other educational environments. Today’s world and communities are designed around instant gratification. Food can be prepared and consumed in seconds through fast food and microwaves.Trivial information is immediately accessible, thanks to Google, Wikipedia, and smart phones like the iPhone. TV shows, music, and movies are seconds away thanks to iTunes and Zune, for the two people in the world who use it. Communication with a friend has progressed from a handwritten letter delivered by pony to delivery by truck to telegraph to telephone to answering machines to cell phones and email to text messages and twitter (still not buying into it). What took as long as weeks to deliver via pony express now takes seconds thanks to texting and twitter. Your network is always instantly accessible; you don’t even have to wait for them to return home to hear your message! Even coaches in sports are expected to win NOW!If instant gratification is so much a part of our culture’s design, it is easy to understand the immediacy and passion behind The Cluetrain Manifesto. But is accurate or reflective of the way innovation works? Is there a way to change this design, or is it even necessary?I intend to post this now. It frustrates me when my internet connection takes 4 seconds to do so!
I Hate Movable Type — and Cluetrain eats soggy Cheerios
I just typed a nice, long entry reviewing Cluetrain only to find that my session had timed out and I lost the entire thing when I tried to publish it. AARARGHARGHAGRHAHRGH! I’ll try again to recapture my thoughts, which I was so proud of.After reading assigned sections of The Cluetrain Manifesto, I am amazed at the difference in tone between several entries. I agreed with the ideas behind The 95 Theses, but I wondered what the authors had experience that day that left them so bitter and angry towards the existing market/audience system. Was it that they were forced to eat soggy Cheerios? Or did they have an experience similar to Julie Snyder’s with MCI, as shared through NPR’s This American Life episode #253: The Middle of Nowhere? In it, Julie attempts to rectify an overcharge on her account, but nine months later is stuck in bureaucratic neglect and playing the company’s games. Give it a listen; it’s frustratingly refreshing. And while the Foreword (written by someone else) and Elevator Rap are not as aggressive as the 95 Theses, they share the same contempt for the ‘current’ design of markets and audiences.But then I reached the Introduction. Wow! Did the same four people write this section? This section is filled with hope and optimism, and left me believing that the Internet can change business and the world with it. The relationship between markets and audiences is shifting drastically. Markets, and the humans inside of them, are becoming audiences and audiences are, well, remaining audiences. But now everyone in the audience can have a voice, and everyone has an opportunity to hear that voice. The companies that hear the voices and truly listen are better poised to adapt their identities to better fit in with the new design. And once they evolve, they are better equipped to function in the new community envisioned by the Cluetrain authors.Alas, the authors have poured themselves a new, crunchy bowl of Cheerios. (And Movable Type has left my bowl out for too long.)
Discussion Questions for Class on 02.07.08
When does a teaching environment become a learning community?
What does it mean to engage in meaningful activity that is focused on a goal in the context of school (k-12 or higher ed)?
Is there a real life identity that is separate or more real than the multiple online identities? Does this depend on the person? Is RL identity monolithic, and if not, what parts are the real parts?
What does a community of practice approach mean for collaboration in schools? How do you do assessment?
What is the impact of all this multitasking on students and their connection to communities? What about their identity?
How is it different to respond to these questions directly in the course blog versus posting into the Pligg environment?
defining the undefinable
Jean Marie Tim BennettWe’ve decided that an individual’s online identity can be summed up only through song. Are you so much cooler online? The internet gives us the ability to be who we want, at any time, at any given place, to anyone.Community is a system of engagement, whereby the computer and internet have broken distance barriers and can be seen as a tool for the facilitation of a conversation.We’re designing spaces to make life easier. it’s a method to meet our basic human needs which fundamentally haven’t changed over time, rather how we satisfy our needs continues to evolve.
Reading Responses
One of your weekly assignments will be to post responses / reflections on the readings that you are doing. These responses should focus around the three themes of the course: Community, Identity, and Design. Not all readings will address all themes, so it is not a question of commenting on each theme with each reading. The idea is for you to start to build up a strong theoretical foundation for the way technology should be used in teaching and learning and the implications of various technologies. You will also be asked to respond to the responses / reflections of your classmates. Here are the deadlines and details:
- Monday (by 5 pm) – Post your reflection to your blog, it will automagically be posted to our course Pligg site.
- Tuesday (by 5 pm) – Read reflections of your classmates, pick three (3) that you think are interesting / provocative / need more discussion, vote for these three reflections and write a response about why this reflection earned your vote.
Each week one group will be responsible for harvesting the top vote getters and facilitating a discussion about them in Thursday’s class.